New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars" defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an application of science be successful? Is a militarized space inevitable, necessary or impossible?

Read Debates, a new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every Thursday.

gisterme - 09:57pm Aug 6, 2003 EST (# 13259 of 13267)

"...You can't do a workable job "building a railroad" - or doing other stark, large scale optimal jobs - starting from small - without government help well prior to fruition..."

Hmmm. I thought the majority of the origianl US railroads were built via private funding or with relatively small government subsidies...mostly in the form of vast land grants. I'm quite sure that government did not significantly subsidise other transportation such as the maritime shipping industry. Same with the civil aviation industry. Same with the automobile industry. Same with all the Energy industries (except nuclear). Same with the telecommunications industry. Same with materials industires such as mining and lumber.

I don't think that the government got much involved with any of those until it recognized them as cash cows that could be milked to supplement the general fund. Of course, it's "we the people" from whom the "milk" ultimately comes.

It's true that since the great depression and the days of FDR government has become the "big spender" for many large civil projects such as dam building and the interstate highway system (an Eisenhower initiative). It also true that over that same period, and especially since WWII, military spending has laid the foundatons of many of our hi-tech industries; but those haven't been developed for civil use except by private capitalizaton. Overall those government initiatives have been good things since the actual work was done by private contractors and the money goes back into the private economy. However, that doesn't mean that the government must necessarily fund every big project to make it happen.

I'd like to think that there's still a lot more private capital out there than re-directed tax money.

So if you're "the man with the plan and alls he needs is a hunr'd gran'" you might be barking up the wrong tree if you expect the government to fund you. However, you might have a better chance with the government if you're trying to get a screwball idea funded than you would with seeking private capital. That's because those who pass out private capital for R&D are much more directly accountable for thier expenditures. The legislature won't get fired for throwing money down a rathole...at least they haven't yet. The only reason they don't throw more money down the rathole than they do is because the vast majority of the contractors they hire are honest and competent.

If it were up to legislators to really know what's going on with the money they spend and to really have technical understanding of and personal responsibility for management of projects then we'd all be in deep doo doo. Fortunately, it's results that count and of course good results on civil projects lead to large deposits of political capital to the accounts of legislators. You already knew that. That's the engine that drives pork-barrel politics.

"...Some things "free markets, starting small" cannot do..."

Right. Like build a ballistic missile defense system.

almarst2002 - 11:33pm Aug 6, 2003 EST (# 13260 of 13267)

Convicted felons responsible for thousands of deaths are calling the shots at the White House - http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1013829,00.html

rshow55 - 05:35am Aug 7, 2003 EST (# 13261 of 13267)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

Gisterme - private funding may be entirely consistent with my needs. I stand by what I said.

Every single thing I was assigned to do required some essential support from a nation state in two ways.

First of all, they all involved such complex cooperation that they were fragile - they could be stopped with "a few well placed phone calls."

Secondly, they all involved such complex cooperation that occasionally, the idea that the government wanted the work done had to be conveyed.

That's certainly true of the solar energy work I've done. It was true of AEA - where Bill Casey could, and did, knock down a big private offering with a phone call. For reasons that seemed fairly reasonable to me, as well has him, at that particular time.

I need clarifications of my security situation to work. I've been asking for them - steadily - and working to go "through channels" - for a long time. A great deal of that effort can be checked.

For the last few weeks, I've been away from home - visiting relatives. Not able to search, and respond, as well as I would have been able to do at home.

I'll be driving today and some of tomorrow - and off the board.

Fredmoore , it seems to me that greed is a human circumstance, and short-sightedness, too - but that some fairly easy changes (even changes at the New York Times) might make some key things better.

rshow55 - 05:41am Aug 7, 2003 EST (# 13262 of 13267)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

I've been doing the best I can under imperfect circumstances, and with limitations. Here's a short poem I wrote on the point.

http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee79f4e/8002

(5 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense